Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1431 | control, N = 721 | treatment, N = 711 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 141 | 50.75 ± 12.64 (25 - 74) | 51.24 ± 12.39 (25 - 74) | 50.28 ± 12.96 (28 - 73) | 0.653 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 143 | 0.879 | |||
f | 110 (77%) | 55 (76%) | 55 (77%) | ||
m | 33 (23%) | 17 (24%) | 16 (23%) | ||
occupation | 143 | 0.688 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.4%) | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 18 (13%) | 9 (12%) | 9 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (8.4%) | 5 (6.9%) | 7 (9.9%) | ||
other | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.8%) | ||
part_time | 26 (18%) | 12 (17%) | 14 (20%) | ||
retired | 38 (27%) | 19 (26%) | 19 (27%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (4.9%) | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (4.2%) | ||
student | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 34 (24%) | 20 (28%) | 14 (20%) | ||
marital | 143 | 0.792 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 15 (10%) | 10 (14%) | 5 (7.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.8%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.8%) | ||
married | 39 (27%) | 20 (28%) | 19 (27%) | ||
none | 72 (50%) | 34 (47%) | 38 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.1%) | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 9 (6.3%) | 4 (5.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | ||
edu | 143 | 0.197 | |||
bachelor | 35 (24%) | 13 (18%) | 22 (31%) | ||
diploma | 27 (19%) | 18 (25%) | 9 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.8%) | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 12 (8.4%) | 5 (6.9%) | 7 (9.9%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.3%) | 3 (4.2%) | 6 (8.5%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (11%) | 9 (12%) | 7 (9.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 33 (23%) | 19 (26%) | 14 (20%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 7 (4.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 5 (7.0%) | ||
fam_income | 143 | 0.981 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.2%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 7 (4.9%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.6%) | ||
14001_16000 | 8 (5.6%) | 3 (4.2%) | 5 (7.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.8%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 6 (4.2%) | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 27 (19%) | 15 (21%) | 12 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 20 (14%) | 11 (15%) | 9 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 14 (9.8%) | 6 (8.3%) | 8 (11%) | ||
6001_8000 | 12 (8.4%) | 7 (9.7%) | 5 (7.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 11 (7.7%) | 5 (6.9%) | 6 (8.5%) | ||
below_2000 | 28 (20%) | 14 (19%) | 14 (20%) | ||
medication | 143 | 125 (87%) | 63 (88%) | 62 (87%) | 0.975 |
onset_duration | 140 | 15.08 ± 10.20 (0 - 56) | 15.80 ± 10.86 (0 - 56) | 14.33 ± 9.47 (0 - 35) | 0.396 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 138 | 35.89 ± 14.04 (10 - 65) | 35.28 ± 12.65 (10 - 61) | 36.52 ± 15.41 (14 - 65) | 0.604 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1431 | control, N = 721 | treatment, N = 711 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 143 | 3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 3.25 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.11 (1 - 5) | 0.530 |
recovery_stage_b | 143 | 17.92 ± 2.79 (8 - 24) | 17.89 ± 2.91 (8 - 24) | 17.94 ± 2.68 (13 - 24) | 0.907 |
ras_confidence | 143 | 29.97 ± 5.13 (15 - 45) | 29.83 ± 4.84 (15 - 40) | 30.11 ± 5.43 (18 - 45) | 0.746 |
ras_willingness | 143 | 11.78 ± 2.07 (5 - 15) | 11.67 ± 2.06 (5 - 15) | 11.90 ± 2.10 (7 - 15) | 0.500 |
ras_goal | 143 | 17.34 ± 3.09 (11 - 25) | 17.12 ± 2.88 (11 - 24) | 17.55 ± 3.30 (11 - 25) | 0.414 |
ras_reliance | 143 | 13.17 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 12.99 ± 2.79 (5 - 18) | 13.37 ± 3.07 (7 - 20) | 0.439 |
ras_domination | 143 | 9.90 ± 2.41 (3 - 15) | 10.17 ± 2.30 (3 - 15) | 9.63 ± 2.50 (3 - 15) | 0.187 |
symptom | 143 | 29.97 ± 9.32 (14 - 56) | 29.81 ± 9.60 (14 - 55) | 30.13 ± 9.08 (15 - 56) | 0.838 |
slof_work | 143 | 22.45 ± 4.82 (10 - 30) | 22.75 ± 4.43 (13 - 30) | 22.15 ± 5.21 (10 - 30) | 0.463 |
slof_relationship | 143 | 25.10 ± 6.02 (9 - 35) | 24.82 ± 6.05 (9 - 35) | 25.38 ± 6.03 (11 - 35) | 0.580 |
satisfaction | 143 | 20.50 ± 7.19 (5 - 35) | 19.93 ± 6.77 (5 - 33) | 21.07 ± 7.59 (5 - 35) | 0.345 |
mhc_emotional | 143 | 10.87 ± 3.80 (3 - 18) | 10.64 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.11 ± 3.93 (3 - 18) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 143 | 14.93 ± 5.66 (5 - 30) | 14.67 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 15.20 ± 5.75 (5 - 29) | 0.577 |
mhc_psychological | 143 | 21.87 ± 6.43 (6 - 36) | 21.78 ± 6.07 (7 - 36) | 21.97 ± 6.82 (6 - 36) | 0.858 |
resilisnce | 143 | 16.64 ± 4.70 (6 - 30) | 16.26 ± 4.18 (6 - 24) | 17.01 ± 5.18 (6 - 30) | 0.342 |
social_provision | 143 | 13.50 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 13.10 ± 2.63 (5 - 20) | 13.90 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.101 |
els_value_living | 143 | 16.92 ± 3.15 (5 - 25) | 16.58 ± 2.92 (6 - 22) | 17.27 ± 3.35 (5 - 25) | 0.195 |
els_life_fulfill | 143 | 12.71 ± 3.42 (4 - 20) | 12.35 ± 3.26 (5 - 19) | 13.07 ± 3.57 (4 - 20) | 0.208 |
els | 143 | 29.63 ± 5.98 (9 - 45) | 28.93 ± 5.50 (11 - 38) | 30.34 ± 6.40 (9 - 45) | 0.160 |
social_connect | 143 | 26.65 ± 9.53 (8 - 48) | 26.75 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 26.55 ± 9.93 (8 - 48) | 0.900 |
shs_agency | 143 | 14.24 ± 5.19 (3 - 24) | 13.90 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.58 ± 5.61 (3 - 24) | 0.439 |
shs_pathway | 143 | 15.99 ± 4.07 (4 - 24) | 15.65 ± 3.92 (5 - 24) | 16.34 ± 4.21 (4 - 24) | 0.315 |
shs | 143 | 30.23 ± 8.86 (7 - 48) | 29.56 ± 8.32 (8 - 45) | 30.92 ± 9.39 (7 - 48) | 0.361 |
esteem | 143 | 12.60 ± 1.64 (9 - 20) | 12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.58 ± 1.66 (10 - 20) | 0.863 |
mlq_search | 143 | 14.81 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.64 ± 3.34 (6 - 21) | 14.99 ± 3.70 (3 - 21) | 0.557 |
mlq_presence | 143 | 13.40 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.32 ± 3.81 (4 - 21) | 13.48 ± 4.69 (3 - 21) | 0.824 |
mlq | 143 | 28.21 ± 6.94 (6 - 42) | 27.96 ± 6.31 (10 - 40) | 28.46 ± 7.56 (6 - 42) | 0.664 |
empower | 143 | 19.23 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 18.93 ± 4.15 (11 - 30) | 19.54 ± 4.36 (6 - 30) | 0.397 |
ismi_resistance | 143 | 14.50 ± 2.54 (5 - 20) | 14.47 ± 2.19 (10 - 20) | 14.52 ± 2.87 (5 - 20) | 0.909 |
ismi_discrimation | 143 | 11.63 ± 3.13 (5 - 20) | 11.97 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 11.28 ± 3.24 (5 - 20) | 0.188 |
sss_affective | 143 | 9.99 ± 3.58 (3 - 18) | 10.01 ± 3.49 (3 - 18) | 9.97 ± 3.68 (3 - 18) | 0.944 |
sss_behavior | 143 | 9.71 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 9.88 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.55 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 0.608 |
sss_cognitive | 143 | 8.27 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 8.26 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 8.27 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 0.995 |
sss | 143 | 27.97 ± 10.29 (9 - 54) | 28.15 ± 10.19 (9 - 54) | 27.79 ± 10.47 (9 - 54) | 0.833 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.25 | 0.138 | 2.98, 3.52 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.123 | 0.196 | -0.508, 0.261 | 0.531 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.021 | 0.215 | -0.401, 0.443 | 0.922 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.468 | 0.305 | -0.130, 1.07 | 0.128 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.337 | 17.2, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.055 | 0.478 | -0.882, 0.992 | 0.909 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.493 | 0.482 | -1.44, 0.451 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.987 | 0.682 | -0.349, 2.32 | 0.151 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.605 | 28.6, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.279 | 0.859 | -1.40, 1.96 | 0.745 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.766 | 0.672 | -0.551, 2.08 | 0.258 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.00 | 0.950 | -0.862, 2.86 | 0.296 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.244 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.235 | 0.346 | -0.444, 0.913 | 0.499 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.402 | 0.269 | -0.929, 0.124 | 0.139 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.679 | 0.380 | -0.066, 1.42 | 0.078 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.372 | 16.4, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.424 | 0.528 | -0.611, 1.46 | 0.423 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.116 | 0.466 | -1.03, 0.797 | 0.804 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 0.659 | -0.269, 2.31 | 0.125 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.339 | 12.3, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.380 | 0.481 | -0.563, 1.32 | 0.431 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.374 | 0.371 | -0.354, 1.10 | 0.317 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.834 | 0.525 | -0.195, 1.86 | 0.117 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.276 | 9.63, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.533 | 0.392 | -1.30, 0.235 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.431 | 0.378 | -1.17, 0.310 | 0.258 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.43 | 0.535 | 0.382, 2.48 | 0.009 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.104 | 27.6, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.321 | 1.566 | -2.75, 3.39 | 0.838 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.320 | 0.949 | -2.18, 1.54 | 0.737 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.39 | 1.342 | -4.02, 1.24 | 0.302 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.568 | 21.6, 23.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.595 | 0.807 | -2.18, 0.986 | 0.462 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.351 | 0.625 | -1.58, 0.875 | 0.577 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.542 | 0.885 | -1.19, 2.28 | 0.542 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.8 | 0.707 | 23.4, 26.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.561 | 1.004 | -1.41, 2.53 | 0.577 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.549 | 0.747 | -2.01, 0.914 | 0.464 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 1.056 | -1.06, 3.08 | 0.341 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 0.852 | 18.3, 21.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.14 | 1.210 | -1.23, 3.51 | 0.347 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.670 | 0.911 | -1.12, 2.46 | 0.465 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.632 | 1.289 | -1.89, 3.16 | 0.625 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.444 | 9.77, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.474 | 0.630 | -0.761, 1.71 | 0.453 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.262 | 0.447 | -0.614, 1.14 | 0.560 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.003 | 0.632 | -1.24, 1.24 | 0.996 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.687 | 13.3, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.531 | 0.975 | -1.38, 2.44 | 0.587 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.776 | 0.757 | -0.707, 2.26 | 0.308 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.282 | 1.070 | -1.82, 2.38 | 0.793 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.786 | 20.2, 23.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.194 | 1.115 | -1.99, 2.38 | 0.862 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.804 | 0.873 | -0.907, 2.52 | 0.360 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.056 | 1.235 | -2.36, 2.48 | 0.964 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.541 | 15.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.750 | 0.767 | -0.753, 2.25 | 0.330 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.036 | 0.625 | -1.19, 1.26 | 0.955 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.75 | 0.885 | 0.020, 3.49 | 0.051 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.344 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.804 | 0.488 | -0.153, 1.76 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.635 | 0.416 | -1.45, 0.180 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.892 | 0.589 | -0.262, 2.05 | 0.134 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.374 | 15.9, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.684 | 0.530 | -0.355, 1.72 | 0.199 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.232 | 0.420 | -0.591, 1.05 | 0.583 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.195 | 0.594 | -0.969, 1.36 | 0.744 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.396 | 11.6, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.723 | 0.562 | -0.378, 1.82 | 0.200 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.377 | 0.386 | -0.380, 1.13 | 0.333 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.096 | 0.546 | -0.974, 1.17 | 0.861 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 0.704 | 27.6, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.41 | 1.000 | -0.552, 3.37 | 0.161 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.612 | 0.655 | -0.672, 1.90 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.213 | 0.927 | -1.60, 2.03 | 0.819 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.8 | 1.138 | 24.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.201 | 1.616 | -3.37, 2.97 | 0.901 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.07 | 1.058 | -1.00, 3.15 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.79 | 1.497 | -6.73, -0.858 | 0.014 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.611 | 12.7, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.675 | 0.867 | -1.02, 2.37 | 0.438 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.058 | 0.593 | -1.22, 1.10 | 0.922 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.913 | 0.839 | -0.731, 2.56 | 0.280 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.473 | 14.7, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.685 | 0.671 | -0.630, 2.00 | 0.309 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.107 | 0.478 | -0.829, 1.04 | 0.823 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.140 | 0.676 | -1.19, 1.46 | 0.837 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.034 | 27.5, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.36 | 1.468 | -1.52, 4.24 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.037 | 0.983 | -1.89, 1.96 | 0.970 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 1.391 | -1.68, 3.77 | 0.456 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.182 | 12.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.048 | 0.258 | -0.553, 0.458 | 0.854 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.128 | 0.276 | -0.413, 0.668 | 0.644 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.036 | 0.390 | -0.729, 0.800 | 0.928 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.412 | 13.8, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.347 | 0.585 | -0.799, 1.49 | 0.554 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.489 | 0.529 | -0.549, 1.53 | 0.359 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.699 | 0.749 | -2.17, 0.769 | 0.354 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.500 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.159 | 0.709 | -1.23, 1.55 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.348 | 0.573 | -0.775, 1.47 | 0.546 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.077 | 0.811 | -1.51, 1.67 | 0.924 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.824 | 26.3, 29.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.506 | 1.170 | -1.79, 2.80 | 0.666 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.838 | 0.966 | -1.06, 2.73 | 0.388 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.609 | 1.367 | -3.29, 2.07 | 0.657 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 0.498 | 18.0, 19.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.605 | 0.706 | -0.779, 1.99 | 0.393 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.539 | 0.497 | -0.435, 1.51 | 0.282 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.611 | 0.702 | -1.99, 0.766 | 0.387 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.296 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.049 | 0.420 | -0.774, 0.871 | 0.907 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.182 | 0.398 | -0.963, 0.598 | 0.649 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.877 | 0.563 | -0.227, 1.98 | 0.123 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.369 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.691 | 0.524 | -1.72, 0.337 | 0.190 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.131 | 0.413 | -0.940, 0.678 | 0.752 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.106 | 0.584 | -1.25, 1.04 | 0.856 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.418 | 9.20, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.042 | 0.593 | -1.20, 1.12 | 0.944 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.010 | 0.455 | -0.882, 0.902 | 0.983 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.18 | 0.644 | -2.44, 0.085 | 0.072 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.88 | 0.441 | 9.01, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.326 | 0.626 | -1.55, 0.901 | 0.604 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.167 | 0.478 | -1.10, 0.769 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.528 | 0.676 | -1.85, 0.797 | 0.437 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.26 | 0.438 | 7.41, 9.12 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.004 | 0.621 | -1.21, 1.22 | 0.995 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.414 | 0.486 | -0.538, 1.37 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.30 | 0.687 | -2.64, 0.051 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.205 | 25.8, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.364 | 1.710 | -3.71, 2.99 | 0.832 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.155 | 1.188 | -2.17, 2.48 | 0.896 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.78 | 1.681 | -6.08, 0.512 | 0.102 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.98, 3.52], t(201) = 23.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.26], t(201) = -0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(201) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.07], t(201) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.89 (95% CI [17.23, 18.55], t(201) = 53.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.99], t(201) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.45], t(201) = -1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.32], t(201) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.65, 31.02], t(201) = 49.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.96], t(201) = 0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.08], t(201) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.86], t(201) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.19, 12.14], t(201) = 47.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.91], t(201) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.12], t(201) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.42], t(201) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.13 (95% CI [16.40, 17.85], t(201) = 46.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.46], t(201) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.80], t(201) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.31], t(201) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.32, 13.65], t(201) = 38.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.32], t(201) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.10], t(201) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.86], t(201) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.63, 10.71], t(201) = 36.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.23], t(201) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.31], t(201) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.38, 2.48], t(201) = 2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.16, 1.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [27.64, 31.97], t(201) = 27.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.39], t(201) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.54], t(201) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-4.02, 1.24], t(201) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.75 (95% CI [21.64, 23.86], t(201) = 40.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.18, 0.99], t(201) = -0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.87], t(201) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.28], t(201) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.82 (95% CI [23.43, 26.21], t(201) = 35.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.53], t(201) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.91], t(201) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.08], t(201) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.93 (95% CI [18.26, 21.60], t(201) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.51], t(201) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.46], t(201) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.16], t(201) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.77, 11.51], t(201) = 23.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.71], t(201) = 0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.14], t(201) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07e-03, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.24], t(201) = 4.86e-03, p = 0.996; Std. beta = 8.16e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.67 (95% CI [13.32, 16.01], t(201) = 21.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.44], t(201) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.26], t(201) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.82, 2.38], t(201) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.78 (95% CI [20.24, 23.32], t(201) = 27.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.38], t(201) = 0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.52], t(201) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.48], t(201) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 8.53e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [15.20, 17.32], t(201) = 30.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.25], t(201) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.26], t(201) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [0.02, 3.49], t(201) = 1.98, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [4.42e-03, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.10 (95% CI [12.42, 13.77], t(201) = 38.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.76], t(201) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.18], t(201) = -1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.05], t(201) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.85, 17.32], t(201) = 44.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.72], t(201) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(201) = 0.55, p = 0.581; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.36], t(201) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.57, 13.12], t(201) = 31.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.82], t(201) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.13], t(201) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.17], t(201) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.93 (95% CI [27.55, 30.31], t(201) = 41.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.55, 3.37], t(201) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.90], t(201) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.60, 2.03], t(201) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.75 (95% CI [24.52, 28.98], t(201) = 23.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.37, 2.97], t(201) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.15], t(201) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.79, 95% CI [-6.73, -0.86], t(201) = -2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.90 (95% CI [12.71, 15.10], t(201) = 22.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.02, 2.37], t(201) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.10], t(201) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.56], t(201) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.65 (95% CI [14.73, 16.58], t(201) = 33.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.00], t(201) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.04], t(201) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.46], t(201) = 0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.53, 31.58], t(201) = 28.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-1.52, 4.24], t(201) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.96], t(201) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 4.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-1.68, 3.77], t(201) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.27, 12.98], t(201) = 69.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.46], t(201) = -0.18, p = 0.854; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.67], t(201) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.80], t(201) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.64 (95% CI [13.83, 15.45], t(201) = 35.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.49], t(201) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(201) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.77], t(201) = -0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.34, 14.30], t(201) = 26.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.55], t(201) = 0.22, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.47], t(201) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.67], t(201) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.96 (95% CI [26.34, 29.57], t(201) = 33.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.80], t(201) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.73], t(201) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.29, 2.07], t(201) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.93 (95% CI [17.96, 19.91], t(201) = 38.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.99], t(201) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.51], t(201) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.77], t(201) = -0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.89, 15.05], t(201) = 48.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.87], t(201) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.60], t(201) = -0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.98], t(201) = 1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.25, 12.70], t(201) = 32.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.34], t(201) = -1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.68], t(201) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.04], t(201) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.20, 10.83], t(201) = 23.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.12], t(201) = -0.07, p = 0.943; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.90], t(201) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 2.76e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.09], t(201) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.88 (95% CI [9.01, 10.74], t(201) = 22.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.90], t(201) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.77], t(201) = -0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.85, 0.80], t(201) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.26 (95% CI [7.41, 9.12], t(201) = 18.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.72e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.22], t(201) = 5.98e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = 9.92e-04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(201) = 0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.64, 0.05], t(201) = -1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.79, 30.51], t(201) = 23.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-3.71, 2.99], t(201) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.48], t(201) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.78, 95% CI [-6.08, 0.51], t(201) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 652.713 | 662.711 | -323.356 | 646.713 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 653.611 | 673.607 | -320.806 | 641.611 | 5.102 | 3 | 0.165 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 1,011.116 | 1,021.115 | -502.558 | 1,005.116 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 1,014.483 | 1,034.479 | -501.241 | 1,002.483 | 2.634 | 3 | 0.452 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,231.791 | 1,241.790 | -612.896 | 1,225.791 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,229.286 | 1,249.282 | -608.643 | 1,217.286 | 8.506 | 3 | 0.037 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 851.093 | 861.091 | -422.547 | 845.093 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 852.323 | 872.319 | -420.162 | 840.323 | 4.770 | 3 | 0.189 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 1,041.422 | 1,051.420 | -517.711 | 1,035.422 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 1,041.721 | 1,061.717 | -514.860 | 1,029.721 | 5.701 | 3 | 0.127 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 994.704 | 1,004.702 | -494.352 | 988.704 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 987.991 | 1,007.987 | -487.995 | 975.991 | 12.713 | 3 | 0.005 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 929.653 | 939.651 | -461.827 | 923.653 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 927.598 | 947.594 | -457.799 | 915.598 | 8.055 | 3 | 0.045 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,444.971 | 1,454.969 | -719.485 | 1,438.971 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,447.575 | 1,467.571 | -717.787 | 1,435.575 | 3.396 | 3 | 0.334 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,197.123 | 1,207.121 | -595.561 | 1,191.123 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,202.347 | 1,222.343 | -595.173 | 1,190.347 | 0.776 | 3 | 0.855 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,283.676 | 1,293.674 | -638.838 | 1,277.676 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,288.032 | 1,308.028 | -638.016 | 1,276.032 | 1.644 | 3 | 0.649 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,364.631 | 1,374.629 | -679.315 | 1,358.631 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,366.779 | 1,386.775 | -677.389 | 1,354.779 | 3.852 | 3 | 0.278 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,084.968 | 1,094.967 | -539.484 | 1,078.968 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,089.651 | 1,109.647 | -538.825 | 1,077.651 | 1.318 | 3 | 0.725 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,278.561 | 1,288.559 | -636.280 | 1,272.561 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,281.118 | 1,301.114 | -634.559 | 1,269.118 | 3.443 | 3 | 0.328 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,333.582 | 1,343.580 | -663.791 | 1,327.582 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,337.692 | 1,357.688 | -662.846 | 1,325.692 | 1.890 | 3 | 0.596 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,191.850 | 1,201.848 | -592.925 | 1,185.850 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,187.380 | 1,207.376 | -587.690 | 1,175.380 | 10.470 | 3 | 0.015 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 1,007.032 | 1,017.030 | -500.516 | 1,001.032 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 1,005.476 | 1,025.473 | -496.738 | 993.476 | 7.556 | 3 | 0.056 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 1,028.705 | 1,038.703 | -511.353 | 1,022.705 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 1,031.289 | 1,051.285 | -509.644 | 1,019.289 | 3.416 | 3 | 0.332 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 1,036.701 | 1,046.699 | -515.351 | 1,030.701 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 1,038.338 | 1,058.335 | -513.169 | 1,026.338 | 4.363 | 3 | 0.225 |
els | null | 3 | 1,270.043 | 1,280.041 | -632.021 | 1,264.043 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,271.308 | 1,291.304 | -629.654 | 1,259.308 | 4.735 | 3 | 0.192 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,471.966 | 1,481.964 | -732.983 | 1,465.966 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,469.929 | 1,489.925 | -728.964 | 1,457.929 | 8.037 | 3 | 0.045 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,214.678 | 1,224.676 | -604.339 | 1,208.678 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,217.428 | 1,237.424 | -602.714 | 1,205.428 | 3.250 | 3 | 0.355 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,111.779 | 1,121.777 | -552.889 | 1,105.779 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,116.229 | 1,136.226 | -552.115 | 1,104.229 | 1.549 | 3 | 0.671 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,429.503 | 1,439.501 | -711.751 | 1,423.503 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,432.999 | 1,452.995 | -710.499 | 1,420.999 | 2.504 | 3 | 0.475 |
esteem | null | 3 | 758.939 | 768.937 | -376.469 | 752.939 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 764.335 | 784.331 | -376.167 | 752.335 | 0.604 | 3 | 0.896 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,081.982 | 1,091.980 | -537.991 | 1,075.982 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,086.855 | 1,106.851 | -537.428 | 1,074.855 | 1.126 | 3 | 0.771 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,148.965 | 1,158.963 | -571.482 | 1,142.965 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,153.955 | 1,173.952 | -570.978 | 1,141.955 | 1.009 | 3 | 0.799 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,358.510 | 1,368.508 | -676.255 | 1,352.510 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,363.581 | 1,383.577 | -675.790 | 1,351.581 | 0.930 | 3 | 0.818 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,131.526 | 1,141.524 | -562.763 | 1,125.526 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,135.850 | 1,155.846 | -561.925 | 1,123.850 | 1.676 | 3 | 0.642 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 952.196 | 962.194 | -473.098 | 946.196 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 954.423 | 974.419 | -471.211 | 942.423 | 3.773 | 3 | 0.287 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 1,022.208 | 1,032.206 | -508.104 | 1,016.208 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 1,025.774 | 1,045.770 | -506.887 | 1,013.774 | 2.434 | 3 | 0.487 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,074.728 | 1,084.727 | -534.364 | 1,068.728 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,073.820 | 1,093.816 | -530.910 | 1,061.820 | 6.909 | 3 | 0.075 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,092.453 | 1,102.451 | -543.226 | 1,086.453 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,095.615 | 1,115.611 | -541.807 | 1,083.615 | 2.838 | 3 | 0.417 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,093.615 | 1,103.613 | -543.808 | 1,087.615 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,095.276 | 1,115.272 | -541.638 | 1,083.276 | 4.339 | 3 | 0.227 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,499.796 | 1,509.794 | -746.898 | 1,493.796 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,500.469 | 1,520.465 | -744.234 | 1,488.469 | 5.327 | 3 | 0.149 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 72 | 3.25 ± 1.17 | 71 | 3.13 ± 1.17 | 0.531 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 32 | 3.27 ± 1.14 | -0.022 | 32 | 3.62 ± 1.14 | -0.512 | 0.230 | -0.361 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 72 | 17.89 ± 2.86 | 71 | 17.94 ± 2.86 | 0.909 | -0.026 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 32 | 17.40 ± 2.70 | 0.236 | 32 | 18.44 ± 2.70 | -0.237 | 0.124 | -0.499 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 72 | 29.83 ± 5.13 | 71 | 30.11 ± 5.13 | 0.745 | -0.100 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 32 | 30.60 ± 4.39 | -0.273 | 32 | 31.88 ± 4.40 | -0.629 | 0.246 | -0.456 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 72 | 11.67 ± 2.07 | 71 | 11.90 ± 2.07 | 0.499 | -0.209 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 32 | 11.26 ± 1.76 | 0.359 | 32 | 12.18 ± 1.77 | -0.247 | 0.040 | -0.815 |
ras_goal | 1st | 72 | 17.13 ± 3.16 | 71 | 17.55 ± 3.16 | 0.423 | -0.215 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 32 | 17.01 ± 2.82 | 0.059 | 32 | 18.46 ± 2.83 | -0.459 | 0.042 | -0.733 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 72 | 12.99 ± 2.88 | 71 | 13.37 ± 2.88 | 0.431 | -0.245 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 32 | 13.36 ± 2.45 | -0.242 | 32 | 14.57 ± 2.45 | -0.780 | 0.049 | -0.784 |
ras_domination | 1st | 72 | 10.17 ± 2.34 | 71 | 9.63 ± 2.34 | 0.175 | 0.328 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 32 | 9.74 ± 2.17 | 0.265 | 32 | 10.63 ± 2.17 | -0.615 | 0.100 | -0.552 |
symptom | 1st | 72 | 29.81 ± 9.36 | 71 | 30.13 ± 9.36 | 0.838 | -0.083 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 32 | 29.49 ± 7.38 | 0.082 | 32 | 28.41 ± 7.40 | 0.441 | 0.562 | 0.276 |
slof_work | 1st | 72 | 22.75 ± 4.82 | 71 | 22.15 ± 4.82 | 0.462 | 0.228 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 32 | 22.40 ± 4.11 | 0.134 | 32 | 22.35 ± 4.12 | -0.073 | 0.959 | 0.020 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 72 | 24.82 ± 6.00 | 71 | 25.38 ± 6.00 | 0.577 | -0.181 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 32 | 24.27 ± 5.04 | 0.177 | 32 | 25.84 ± 5.05 | -0.149 | 0.214 | -0.507 |
satisfaction | 1st | 72 | 19.93 ± 7.23 | 71 | 21.07 ± 7.23 | 0.347 | -0.301 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 32 | 20.60 ± 6.10 | -0.177 | 32 | 22.37 ± 6.11 | -0.343 | 0.247 | -0.467 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 72 | 10.64 ± 3.77 | 71 | 11.11 ± 3.77 | 0.453 | -0.256 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 32 | 10.90 ± 3.11 | -0.141 | 32 | 11.38 ± 3.12 | -0.143 | 0.541 | -0.258 |
mhc_social | 1st | 72 | 14.67 ± 5.83 | 71 | 15.20 ± 5.83 | 0.587 | -0.168 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 32 | 15.44 ± 4.97 | -0.246 | 32 | 16.26 ± 4.98 | -0.335 | 0.514 | -0.257 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 72 | 21.78 ± 6.67 | 71 | 21.97 ± 6.67 | 0.862 | -0.053 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 32 | 22.58 ± 5.70 | -0.221 | 32 | 22.83 ± 5.71 | -0.236 | 0.861 | -0.069 |
resilisnce | 1st | 72 | 16.26 ± 4.59 | 71 | 17.01 ± 4.59 | 0.330 | -0.286 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 32 | 16.30 ± 3.98 | -0.014 | 32 | 18.80 ± 3.99 | -0.682 | 0.013 | -0.955 |
social_provision | 1st | 72 | 13.10 ± 2.92 | 71 | 13.90 ± 2.92 | 0.102 | -0.458 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 32 | 12.46 ± 2.58 | 0.362 | 32 | 14.16 ± 2.58 | -0.146 | 0.009 | -0.967 |
els_value_living | 1st | 72 | 16.58 ± 3.17 | 71 | 17.27 ± 3.17 | 0.199 | -0.390 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 32 | 16.81 ± 2.72 | -0.132 | 32 | 17.69 ± 2.73 | -0.243 | 0.198 | -0.501 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 72 | 12.35 ± 3.36 | 71 | 13.07 ± 3.36 | 0.200 | -0.454 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 32 | 12.72 ± 2.75 | -0.236 | 32 | 13.54 ± 2.75 | -0.296 | 0.235 | -0.514 |
els | 1st | 72 | 28.93 ± 5.98 | 71 | 30.34 ± 5.98 | 0.161 | -0.521 | ||
els | 2nd | 32 | 29.54 ± 4.82 | -0.227 | 32 | 31.16 ± 4.83 | -0.306 | 0.181 | -0.600 |
social_connect | 1st | 72 | 26.75 ± 9.66 | 71 | 26.55 ± 9.66 | 0.901 | 0.046 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 32 | 27.82 ± 7.78 | -0.246 | 32 | 23.83 ± 7.81 | 0.624 | 0.042 | 0.916 |
shs_agency | 1st | 72 | 13.90 ± 5.18 | 71 | 14.58 ± 5.18 | 0.438 | -0.276 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 32 | 13.84 ± 4.23 | 0.024 | 32 | 15.43 ± 4.25 | -0.349 | 0.136 | -0.648 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 72 | 15.65 ± 4.01 | 71 | 16.34 ± 4.01 | 0.309 | -0.346 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 32 | 15.76 ± 3.32 | -0.054 | 32 | 16.59 ± 3.33 | -0.125 | 0.322 | -0.417 |
shs | 1st | 72 | 29.56 ± 8.78 | 71 | 30.92 ± 8.78 | 0.356 | -0.335 | ||
shs | 2nd | 32 | 29.59 ± 7.12 | -0.009 | 32 | 32.00 ± 7.14 | -0.266 | 0.179 | -0.592 |
esteem | 1st | 72 | 12.62 ± 1.54 | 71 | 12.58 ± 1.54 | 0.854 | 0.039 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 32 | 12.75 ± 1.49 | -0.106 | 32 | 12.74 ± 1.49 | -0.135 | 0.974 | 0.010 |
mlq_search | 1st | 72 | 14.64 ± 3.50 | 71 | 14.99 ± 3.50 | 0.554 | -0.154 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 32 | 15.13 ± 3.16 | -0.217 | 32 | 14.78 ± 3.16 | 0.093 | 0.657 | 0.156 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 72 | 13.32 ± 4.24 | 71 | 13.48 ± 4.24 | 0.822 | -0.066 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 32 | 13.67 ± 3.67 | -0.145 | 32 | 13.90 ± 3.68 | -0.177 | 0.797 | -0.099 |
mlq | 1st | 72 | 27.96 ± 6.99 | 71 | 28.46 ± 6.99 | 0.666 | -0.125 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 32 | 28.80 ± 6.10 | -0.206 | 32 | 28.69 ± 6.11 | -0.056 | 0.947 | 0.025 |
empower | 1st | 72 | 18.93 ± 4.22 | 71 | 19.54 ± 4.22 | 0.393 | -0.294 | ||
empower | 2nd | 32 | 19.47 ± 3.48 | -0.262 | 32 | 19.46 ± 3.49 | 0.035 | 0.994 | 0.003 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 72 | 14.47 ± 2.51 | 71 | 14.52 ± 2.51 | 0.907 | -0.029 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 32 | 14.29 ± 2.31 | 0.107 | 32 | 15.22 ± 2.31 | -0.407 | 0.111 | -0.543 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 72 | 11.97 ± 3.13 | 71 | 11.28 ± 3.13 | 0.190 | 0.400 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 32 | 11.84 ± 2.69 | 0.076 | 32 | 11.04 ± 2.69 | 0.138 | 0.237 | 0.462 |
sss_affective | 1st | 72 | 10.01 ± 3.55 | 71 | 9.97 ± 3.55 | 0.944 | 0.022 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 32 | 10.02 ± 3.01 | -0.005 | 32 | 8.81 ± 3.02 | 0.615 | 0.107 | 0.642 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 72 | 9.88 ± 3.74 | 71 | 9.55 ± 3.74 | 0.604 | 0.164 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 32 | 9.71 ± 3.17 | 0.084 | 32 | 8.85 ± 3.18 | 0.349 | 0.284 | 0.429 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 72 | 8.26 ± 3.71 | 71 | 8.27 ± 3.71 | 0.995 | -0.002 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 32 | 8.68 ± 3.17 | -0.204 | 32 | 7.39 ± 3.18 | 0.435 | 0.105 | 0.637 |
sss | 1st | 72 | 28.15 ± 10.22 | 71 | 27.79 ± 10.22 | 0.832 | 0.074 | ||
sss | 2nd | 32 | 28.31 ± 8.39 | -0.032 | 32 | 25.16 ± 8.41 | 0.535 | 0.136 | 0.640 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(190.25) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.26)
2st
t(196.37) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(180.86) = 0.11, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.00)
2st
t(194.19) = 1.55, p = 0.124, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.37)
ras_confidence
1st
t(162.11) = 0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.97)
2st
t(199.55) = 1.16, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.44)
ras_willingness
1st
t(161.71) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.92)
2st
t(199.79) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.78)
ras_goal
1st
t(169.38) = 0.80, p = 0.423, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.47)
2st
t(195.82) = 2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.84)
ras_reliance
1st
t(161.42) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.33)
2st
t(199.97) = 1.98, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.42)
ras_domination
1st
t(176.73) = -1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.24)
2st
t(194.17) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.97)
symptom
1st
t(152.60) = 0.21, p = 0.838, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.77 to 3.42)
2st
t(202.54) = -0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-4.72 to 2.57)
slof_work
1st
t(161.67) = -0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.19 to 1.00)
2st
t(199.82) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.08 to 1.97)
slof_relationship
1st
t(159.72) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.42 to 2.54)
2st
t(200.99) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.91 to 4.06)
satisfaction
1st
t(160.28) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.53)
2st
t(200.66) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.78)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(157.70) = 0.75, p = 0.453, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.72)
2st
t(202.08) = 0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.01)
mhc_social
1st
t(161.69) = 0.54, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.46)
2st
t(199.81) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.27)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(162.15) = 0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.01 to 2.40)
2st
t(199.53) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.56 to 3.06)
resilisnce
1st
t(164.36) = 0.98, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.26)
2st
t(198.23) = 2.51, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (0.54 to 4.47)
social_provision
1st
t(167.04) = 1.65, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)
2st
t(196.82) = 2.63, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (0.42 to 2.97)
els_value_living
1st
t(162.72) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.73)
2st
t(199.18) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(156.48) = 1.29, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.83)
2st
t(202.60) = 1.19, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.18)
els
1st
t(154.91) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.57 to 3.38)
2st
t(202.98) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.76 to 4.00)
social_connect
1st
t(154.87) = -0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-3.39 to 2.99)
2st
t(202.98) = -2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-7.84 to -0.15)
shs_agency
1st
t(156.34) = 0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.39)
2st
t(202.65) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.68)
shs_pathway
1st
t(157.87) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.01)
2st
t(202.00) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.46)
shs
1st
t(155.61) = 0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.54 to 4.26)
2st
t(202.86) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-1.11 to 5.92)
esteem
1st
t(187.25) = -0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.46)
2st
t(195.39) = -0.03, p = 0.974, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.72)
mlq_search
1st
t(171.33) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.50)
2st
t(195.16) = -0.44, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.21)
mlq_presence
1st
t(163.85) = 0.22, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.56)
2st
t(198.51) = 0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.05)
mlq
1st
t(165.12) = 0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.82)
2st
t(197.80) = -0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.11 to 2.91)
empower
1st
t(157.37) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.00)
2st
t(202.24) = -0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.71)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(175.21) = 0.12, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.88)
2st
t(194.33) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.07)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(162.43) = -1.32, p = 0.190, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.34)
2st
t(199.36) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.53)
sss_affective
1st
t(161.17) = -0.07, p = 0.944, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.13)
2st
t(200.12) = -1.62, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.27)
sss_behavior
1st
t(160.88) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.91)
2st
t(200.30) = -1.08, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.42 to 0.71)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(162.10) = 0.01, p = 0.995, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.23)
2st
t(199.55) = -1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.27)
sss
1st
t(156.92) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-3.74 to 3.01)
2st
t(202.43) = -1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-7.29 to 1.00)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(97.05) = 2.25, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(88.10) = 1.02, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.46)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(74.45) = 2.62, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.42 to 3.11)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(74.20) = 1.03, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.81)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(79.32) = 1.94, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(74.01) = 3.24, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.47 to 1.95)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(84.75) = 2.63, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.76)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(68.60) = -1.80, p = 0.152, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.61 to 0.18)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(74.17) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.44)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(72.93) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.96)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(73.29) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.12)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(71.68) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(74.18) = 1.39, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.57)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(74.48) = 0.98, p = 0.658, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.61)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(75.91) = 2.85, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.54 to 3.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(77.71) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.09)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(74.85) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.27)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(70.93) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.24)
els
1st vs 2st
t(69.97) = 1.26, p = 0.427, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.14)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(69.95) = -2.56, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-4.84 to -0.60)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(70.84) = 1.44, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.04)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(71.78) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.20)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(70.40) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.05)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(93.93) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.71)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(80.71) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.85)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(75.58) = 0.74, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.57)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(76.42) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.16)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(71.47) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.92)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(83.57) = 1.73, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.49)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(74.66) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.59)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(73.85) = -2.55, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.08 to -0.26)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(73.66) = -1.45, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.26)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(74.45) = -1.81, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.09)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(71.20) = -2.20, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.00 to -0.25)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(97.56) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(88.46) = -1.02, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.47)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(74.61) = 1.14, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.11)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(74.35) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.13)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(79.55) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.81)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(74.16) = 1.00, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(85.06) = -1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(68.68) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.58)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(74.32) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.90)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(73.07) = -0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.94)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(73.43) = 0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.49)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(71.80) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(74.34) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.29)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(74.64) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.55)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(76.09) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.29)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(77.91) = -1.52, p = 0.265, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.20)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(75.01) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.07)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(71.04) = 0.97, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.15)
els
1st vs 2st
t(70.07) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.92)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(70.05) = 1.01, p = 0.631, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.19)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(70.95) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.13)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(71.90) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.06)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(70.50) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.00)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(94.38) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.68)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(80.96) = 0.92, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.55)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(75.76) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.49)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(76.61) = 0.86, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.77)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(71.59) = 1.08, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.53)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(83.86) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.61)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(74.82) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.69)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(74.00) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.92)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(73.81) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.79)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(74.61) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.39)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(71.31) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.53)